The above illustration of multitasking reflects my frustration with such orders as Estate of  Mark L. Butler, Deceased, Michael L. Bangs, Executor, Docket No. 12489-23, filed 9/16/25. A motion by the ex’r’s trusty attorneys, the sort of omnibus pretrial deck-clearing motion found in State and Federal courts gets tossed by Judge Tamara W. Ashford.

” Pursuant to Rule 51 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, petitioner’s… motion is not proper, however, because what he seeks should have been stated in separate motions and not joined in one motion. Accordingly, we will deny the motion but note that a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and a motion to compel production of documents may be separately filed with the Court, which the Court will act upon in due course. Additionally, we will direct the parties to inform the Court in a joint status report what weeks… they would be amenable to having this case scheduled for trial at a Special Session of the Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.” Order, at pp. 2-3.

The ex’r’s trusty attorneys asked for responses to interrogs, doc prod, and what looks like a run-of-the-mill scheduling order. Nothing exotic.

But the Rule 51 rationale is strange. The Rule speaks of a “more definite statement” where a pleading is “so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading.” Rule 51(a).

The 1973 notes to Rule 51(a) state “(A) pleading may be sufficiently definite or represent a sufficient statement, and yet the adverse party may be entitled to further Information for other reasons. In that event, other procedures, such as those to which cross-reference ls made in this Rule, should be used rather than the motion for a more definite statement.” 60 T. C. at p. 1092.

As no reference is made to indefinite or ambiguous language in the specific omnibus motion at issue here, I cannot tell how IRS’ counsel (for whom this is obviously not their first trip to the pitcher’s mound) cannot respond. One would assume that they encountered omnibus motions in USDC, USCFC, or CCA. Or maybe even in law school.

I can understand that where self-representeds are involved, omnibus motions should not be allowed. One the one hand the omnibus motion might be a harassment tool for the defier/protester/rounder. On the other, the good faith but hapless pro se might crumple when confronted by an IRS blockbuster.

In a case, as here, where both IRS and the petitioner have sent out the first team, and the Tax Court bench, which is as skillful as any bench anywhere, is on the job, the omnibus might save time and scarce judicial resources.